DMB said: When I talk about the conflict between social and intellectual values, I'm talking about what's on the news tonight and on the ballot in November. Its about this culture right now and how it might be better in the future.
Its not hard to see how a Rorty fan like yourself might resist such a line (between social and intellectual). Matt: Wow, hey, no idea why you would think I wouldn't like a line between "present" and "future". That's what boggles my mind. You have a pretty secure picture of Rorty as a relativist, which he isn't, and it makes talking about anything difficult because you read everything I say as relativist gobbley-gook. Which it isn't, so far as I can tell. A distinction between past and future, between what we've done and where we want to go? Sounds great. Rorty called it Dewey's replacement of "hope" for "knowledge" as the focal of philosophy. Much of what you said sounds perfectly reasonable. I also can't see why "social" and "intellectual" are the monikers we're using. Why not, "past" and "future"? My problem is that I like lots of ad hoc distinctions, not one or two quasi-ontological ones. If I'm too fond of the essentialist, I think you're too fond of the relativist. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
